Current Events > learning economics makes you greedy

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/so-long-rational-economic-man

Research has found that merely studying Homo economicus can alter us. In Israel, third-year economics students rated altruistic traits such as helpfulness, honesty and loyalty as being far less important than did their freshman equivalents. After taking a course in game theory (a study of strategy which assumes self-interest in its models), economics students in the US behaved more selfishly and expected others to do so too.

"The pernicious effects of the self-interest theory have been most disturbing," concludes Robert Frank of Cornell University, who has investigated these effects on economics students over many years, "By encouraging us to expect the worst in others, it brings out the worst in us: dreading the role of the chump, we are often loath to heed our nobler instincts".
---

Because we worship money
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

Because we worship money

money buys what we want.
---

I believe it. all the people I know who went into finance or accounting or something similar became way more materialistic after and are more willing to screw people over. they talk about playing the game and think you should always be figuring out ways to stay ahead of the curve at the expense of others. pretty sad tbh

one guy I know was pretty cool till he went into banking and now he hates welfare and poor people
---

It's the whole basis of game theory. Rational humans won't ever choose a decision that's disadvantageous to them

In reality, not expecting the worst in others is quantifiable as well. When you expect better of people, you're only satisfying a personal ethics because you perceive doing so increases an inherent value in a choice. Whether you expect the worst or not, you're being selfish either way
---

What a bunch of moral posturing in this topic.

legendarylemur posted...

It's the whole basis of game theory. Rational humans won't ever choose a decision that's disadvantageous to them

only in non-iterative/one-off games
---

Balrog0 posted...

legendarylemur posted...

It's the whole basis of game theory. Rational humans won't ever choose a decision that's disadvantageous to them

only in non-iterative/one-off games

Sure, but a perception of people isn't a repeated game but a mass series of individual games. Besides, even in repeated game with learning, collusion and cooperation of a group of people also affects an outside person's judgment. Either way, you're still acting on your best interest
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

What a bunch of moral posturing in this topic.

said the king of posturing

legendarylemur posted...

Sure, but a perception of people isn't a repeated game but a mass series of individual games. Besides, even in repeated game with learning, collusion and cooperation of a group of people also affects an outside person's judgment. Either way, you're still acting on your best interest

I'm not sure I follow you or your point. When you said,

When you expect better of people, you're only satisfying a personal ethics because you perceive doing so increases an inherent value in a choice. Whether you expect the worst or not, you're being selfish either way

I already took you to mean you thought people were inherently selfish. Fine.

But now you're saying that repeated games don't exist (they do) or aren't perceived (they are).

You then go back to saying that, regardless of your choice, you're trying to maximize your utility so you're being selfish. I don't see what that has to do with anything. The issue is, for any individual 'game,' however you decide to interpret that, narrowly maximizing your own efficiency isn't necessarily the best move.

that is the basis for the stag hunt model

anyway I can see why people get selfish and greedy when they study economics
---

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.
---

Balrog0 posted...

anyway I can see why people get selfish and greedy when they study economics

They don't become selfish and greedy. They become rational. Time is the most limited resource. Our loved ones are the most important people to us. Given these facts, people who study economics begin to realize that we need to do what is best for us.

The real greed is when someone else demands that you work to pay for their needs, at the expense of your own future and your own family.

byron posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

What a bunch of moral posturing in this topic.

Stop virtue signaling

fuck off ROD. i have to deal with you on a daily basis.

That's just simple economics, really.
Once you learn the underlying basis of the "give a man a fix" axiom, you're not likely to give away fishes any more.

I don't think the enlightened economists itt are doing anything to help the profession's standing
---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't think the enlightened economists itt are doing anything to help the profession's standing

I'm pretty sure Thomas Sowell fucked with my head more than George Orwell ever could.

Balrog0 posted...

legendarylemur posted...

Sure, but a perception of people isn't a repeated game but a mass series of individual games. Besides, even in repeated game with learning, collusion and cooperation of a group of people also affects an outside person's judgment. Either way, you're still acting on your best interest

I'm not sure I follow you or your point. When you said,

When you expect better of people, you're only satisfying a personal ethics because you perceive doing so increases an inherent value in a choice. Whether you expect the worst or not, you're being selfish either way

I already took you to mean you thought people were inherently selfish. Fine.

But now you're saying that repeated games don't exist (they do) or aren't perceived (they are).

You then go back to saying that, regardless of your choice, you're trying to maximize your utility so you're being selfish. I don't see what that has to do with anything. The issue is, for any individual 'game,' however you decide to interpret that, narrowly maximizing your own efficiency isn't necessarily the best move.

that is the basis for the stag hunt model

anyway I can see why people get selfish and greedy when they study economics

I've never said repeated games don't exist lol. I'm only talking in terms of greed and dealing with people in general. Repeated games are also easily perceivable.

But for a "game," which can be defined by say a business interaction with another human being, without some altruism or misc factors (like act of god or being unable to choose a particular strategy etc), if you don't make the choice that benefits you the most considering the other person is also gonna do the same thing, you're gonna get screwed and your business is gonna suffer.

In Stag Hunt model, the only equilibriums are either 1 person surviving or all of them surviving at a dubious chance. Cooperation only goes so far, especially in a repeated game where depending on a person's ability to go without eating, a person will opt to betray far before their hunger takes over because they feel the other person will also think of doing the same thing. Since the first one takes the cake, the repeated nash eq of a person betraying ends up being far earlier

In such cases, it's just rational to think the worst of others unless you're explicitedly aware of another's altruism and take that into account. Any deviation means the person making the decision has their utilities hampered by their altruism

Also, I never once argued against the fact that learning economics makes you greedy. I've always argued this entire topic that it's only obvious, that greed isn't really a "bad" thing but just a preservation of self and not losing to altruism
---

BTW, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that society is overall more greedy than it was 100-200 years ago.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

BTW, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that society is overall more greedy than it was 100-200 years ago.

Greed exists in any decision making, modern society or not. Trust is another factor in games between people. If there is a choice where it so obviously benefits everybody but somebody's led to believe there's a much greater worth by betraying others, they'll probably make that decision not because they want that worth because they think others will think of doing the same thing. It's why humans are never quite as far along as they potentially can be. But if you trust another person to make that decision, then the inherent value of a choice goes up, and the equilibrium shifts towards that decision
---

From the article:

As this new self-portrait emerges, one surprising trait is worth noting: when we put a monetary value on things that we give a moral value, we can put them in jeopardy. Pay school children to read books and they will, but they may lose the love of reading in the process. Pay farmers to protect the local forest and they will, but their motivation for doing so may switch from respect for the living world to regard for the bottom line. "The market is an instrument, but not an innocent one," warns the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, "...sometimes, market values crowd out nonmarket norms worth caring about".

Because, you've instantly turned those things into jobs now.
Even that is basic economics. A kid simply values a small pizza more than the time it takes him to read a book. Pizza Hut values the fake good-will (and the money they get from parents who are likely to buy another pizza) more than it does that small pizza.

(doublepost a day later)

When you understand how economics work, you become less emotionally interested, thus dispassionate.
That's what's happening here.

Economics, however, doesn't represent the way people actually make financial decisions. So really just making people think they understand a system that they don't, making them greedy when it might not be the optimal choice at all.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Homo economicus

hehe
---

Gamer99z posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Homo economicus

hehe

It's not entirely wrong.

Bullet_Wing posted...

Balrog0 posted...

legendarylemur posted...

It's the whole basis of game theory. Rational humans won't ever choose a decision that's disadvantageous to them

only in non-iterative/one-off games

Have you ever had a chance to 'play' this?
http://ncase.me/trust/
It's called The Evolution of Trust and goes into detail about this exact situation. Really fascinating, goes about 20 min or so, more if you get pulled in and want to try out different combos in sandbox mode.

damn this is cool, and it really illustrates the problem with unlimited tolerance
---